Long stretch of I-96 to close for overhaul in 2014

[ghettopalmetto]

If this 7-mile segment of I-96 can be closed for months-on-end, doesn't that make it a bit *ahem* unnecessary?

[Scottathew]

If this 7-mile segment of I-96 can be closed for months-on-end, doesn't that make it a bit *ahem* unnecessary?

...no.

It being closed to maintain it.

Using your logic, even if we kept it open, if we're able to close to one lane to do roadwork, then that lane isn't needed. Then when it's time to do road work on the next lane and we need to shut it down, then that one isn't needed.

And before you know it every road is deemed as unnecessary because we have to close lanes to do road maintenance.

[ghettopalmetto]

...no.

It being closed to maintain it.

Using your logic, even if we kept it open, if we're able to close to one lane to do roadwork, then that lane isn't needed. Then when it's time to do road work on the next lane and we need to shut it down, then that one isn't needed.

Maintain? No, the entire roadway is being reconstructed.

And yes, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying. If you can close a road outright for damn near a year, and people are still able to get around just fine, then you probably don't need such a road, especially if it's as gold-plated as I-96.

[Scottathew]

Maintain? No, the entire roadway is being reconstructed.

And yes, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying. If you can close a road outright for damn near a year, and people are still able to get around just fine, then you probably don't need such a road, especially if it's as gold-plated as I-96.

I'm completely for the expansion [[err... creation) of mass transit, I just don't think you're appraisal is correct.

They're closing it down because the work can be performed faster. Closing it down for a season has less impact than a longer project would that maintains some open lanes. Because if you closed down a lane or two, the freeway is just as useless as if it is completely closed.

[ghettopalmetto]

I'm completely for the expansion [[err... creation) of mass transit, I just don't think you're appraisal is correct.

They're closing it down because the work can be performed faster. Closing it down for a season has less impact than a longer project would that maintains some open lanes. Because if you closed down a lane or two, the freeway is just as useless as if it is completely closed.

Regardless of the rationale, or the speed at which the work is completed...

...it still stands that MDOT decided the road network could function with this segment of I-96 effectively removed from the map for one year. Rationalize that however you want.

I have shirts in my closet that I throw away if I go a year without wearing them.

But hey, money is free. Build all the gold-plated roads you want.

[Scottathew]

...it still stands that MDOT decided the road network could function with this segment of I-96 effectively removed from the map for one year. Rationalize that however you want.

Closing the road for a season is bad. Having it reduced by two or three lanes for two seasons is worse.

M-DOT weighed the options, and took the one it felt would have the least impact, because this freeway is important, and having it at a reduced state for two construction seasons is too impactful.

I know you somehow want to twist it into a "we don't need freeways and everyone should move back in from the suburbs" statement, but your assertion is simply false.

M-DOT, in my opinion, is the best run government agency in this state. They have our best interests in mind. That's evidenced over and over again as they battle Matty over the Gateway project, the NITC, and continue to execute projects ontime, on budget, and have implemented strategies capital preventative maintenance.

[ghettopalmetto]

M-DOT weighed the options, and took the one it felt would have the least impact, because this freeway is important, and having it at a reduced state for two construction seasons is too impactful.

I know you somehow want to twist it into a "we don't need freeways and everyone should move back in from the suburbs" statement, but your assertion is simply false.

In fact, this 7-mile segment of I-96 is SO IMPORTANT that the Detroit metropolis can function without it for an entire year. Think about that.

That's a fact. Decided by MDOT, not me. So if you want to bitch, take it up with them, and tell your esteemed MDOT that they're wrong. Because you said so.

[Wesley Mouch]

<snip>Closing it down for a season has less impact than a longer project would that maintains some open lanes. Because if you closed down a lane or two, the freeway is just as useless as if it is completely closed.

I'd rather have a longer timespan with minimal capacity. There are people who just don't know any way to get around except the freeways. I hope they at least leave the service drives up and running for those souls who might want to venture from boring Livonia to exciting Corktown.

[bailey]

Maintain? No, the entire roadway is being reconstructed.

And yes, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying. If you can close a road outright for damn near a year, and people are still able to get around just fine, then you probably don't need such a road, especially if it's as gold-plated as I-96.

Depends how you define "just fine". If we're simply going to say that the mere presence of detour routes negates the need for an expressway, well, you can also get from Detroit to Florida...or wherever "just fine" without I-75.

[Detroitnerd]

Depends how you define "just fine". If we're simply going to say that the mere presence of alternate routes negates the need for an expressway, well, you can get from Detroit to Florida "just fine" without I-75 too.

I don't think there's a great deal of objection to inter-city freeways, not from urban planners, or even by the environmental crowd. I believe most of the objections are against commuter trunk roads, intra-city freeways, urban expressways etc. For instance, I imagine many of us would be much happier if, in the 1950s, they routed roads around cities, with exits for arterials leading into the cities.

Instead, they rammed them right through with little thought about what this would do to the delicate networks of streets and thoroughfares.

And, no, Hermod: Why it was done doesn't change what it did.

[Wesley Mouch]

If this 7-mile segment of I-96 can be closed for months-on-end, doesn't that make it a bit *ahem* unnecessary?

I think we do overvalue freeways, especially in urban areas. But it is only part of a system. Thus, the system will continue to handle traffic without this segment. Then on another day, this segment will handle traffic for another segment. Its a network.

Long-haul trucks to and from Canada us I96 quite extensively. They'll move to I94 for the time being.

[Detroitnerd]

Long-haul trucks to and from Canada us I96 quite extensively. They'll move to I94 for the time being.

That makes sense. That would help MDOT make the argument that I-94 needs to be widened. Look at all this TRUCK TRAFFIC!

[Wesley Mouch]

That makes sense. That would help MDOT make the argument that I-94 needs to be widened. Look at all this TRUCK TRAFFIC!

Does anyone else think this idea of closing entire freeway is bad policy? It has to discourage suburban-downtown entertainment traffic for smaller, discretionary trips.

I think MDOT is going easy on contractors.

[Detroitnerd]

Does anyone else think this idea of closing entire freeway is bad policy? It has to discourage suburban-downtown entertainment traffic for smaller, discretionary trips.

I think MDOT is going easy on contractors.

That freeway is sort of lightly used, isn't it? I mean, at some points, with the express lanes and local lanes, it's kind of overkill, isn't it?

Anyway, we've had this discussion before. When they close a freeway, they predict all sorts of traffic snarls lasting forever and ever until the freeway is re-opened. What happens when they close a freeway permanently? The traffic goes elsewhere, and the snarls do not materialize ... pretty interesting.

[iheartthed]

That freeway is sort of lightly used, isn't it? I mean, at some points, with the express lanes and local lanes, it's kind of overkill, isn't it?

Anyway, we've had this discussion before. When they close a freeway, they predict all sorts of traffic snarls lasting forever and ever until the freeway is re-opened. What happens when they close a freeway permanently? The traffic goes elsewhere, and the snarls do not materialize ... pretty interesting.

That freeway is probably never utilized at more than 50% capacity. At almost any time of the day you can drive from downtown to the M-14/275 interchange 85 MPH and barely ever have to touch your brakes [[unless you see the cops or something).

[RO_Resident]

MDOT recently put out a video explaining why some areas seem to be fixed several times why others seem to be neglected.

It's all about the right fix at the right place at the right time.